At yesterday’s pro-gun rally in Albany, NY, an Iraq war veteran and currently serving police officer from a New York urban area, agreed to answered questions on camera about Governor Cuomo’s recent gun grab legislation.

He said that he didn’t think the new gun restrictions would have a positive effect on gun violence in New York state and that the stated purpose for the law, “crime reduction”, is only window dressing – the real purpose is gun confiscation. He later stated that the second amendment guarantees all the other freedoms.

When asked what he would do if ordered to seize guns from American citizens, he said, “that’s a bridge I’ll have to cross when I get there.”

According to a new West Point report, this cop, and all of the people who went to the pro-2nd Amendment rallies, Saturday, should be considered dangerous, far right, “anti-federalists” who “live in the past” and want to “exclude exclude minorities and foreigners”.

Yes, another bogus study by a Military Center, grotesquely biased against conservatives, has been issued – this time it’s a West Point Think Tank warning America about “far right” groups that support *gasp* “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.” See the “Small Wars Journal” piece entitled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future, for another example of this genre.

The US military has become infested with left wing stooges with malevolent intentions who are actively brainwashing young soldiers with anti-conservative hokum.

The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

The report says there were 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011.

Simply put, federalism divides political power between the Beltway and each of the 50 states. Washington, D.C. handles the big issues (international treaties, national defense, printing money, etc.) and the states handle the rest. This arrangement allows each state to tailor laws to their wants and needs while ensuring basic civil rights are protected.

With federalism, California can follow the economic wisdom of Greece, while Texas dumps red tape into the wood chipper. Utah can limit easy access to booze and pot while Colorado hands out shot glasses and rolling papers. Best of all, it’s easier for American citizens to register their wishes with local leaders and vote with their feet if they strongly disagree.

I’d love to hear more about the 350 attacks by what this report calls “far right groups/individuals”. I strongly suspect they’re talking about anarchist and skinhead groups – and conflating them with the right who believe in individual freedoms and limited government.

A pretty, young, auburn-haired woman – mid-20s – drove down a lonely country road somewhere in Oklahoma. Appearing in her rearview mirror, at the back windshield, were two menacing orbs of light floating amid ashen dusk. The guttural roar of a souped-up big block shook the tiny Volkswagen Rabbit as a van-load of inbred thugs lurched left and drew alongside her. A ponytailed passenger taunted inaudibly and blew foul kisses between crude hand gestures. He pointed for her to pull over as the van repeatedly swerved dangerously close.

Inside the car a man, asleep in the reclining passenger seat, was startled awake by the commotion. He rose and darted his head about, calmly assessing the situation. This only spurred the evil-bent goons. As they ramped-up efforts to run the car off the road, the man reached in the glove box….

67% of firearm murders took place in the country’s 50 largest metro areas. The 62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or almost three times the national average.

Those are the crowded cities of Obamerica. Those are the places with the most restrictive gun control laws and the highest crime rates. And many of them have been run by Democrats and their political machines for almost as long as they have been broken.

Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory.

He won New Orleans by 80 to 17 where the murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. He won Detroit, where the murder rate of 53 per 100,000 people is the second highest in the country and twice as high as any country in the world, including the Congo and South Africa. He won it 73 to 26. And then he celebrated his victory in Chicago where the murder rate is three times the statewide average.

Sandy Hook Elementary was a devastating blow to America; it broke our hearts to think that children would be targeted in such a vile and vicious way. But, instead of handling this incident with the mind of a president eager to quell the fears of a nation, your response was to launch an attack against gun owners of all stripes, from the hunters, to sportsmen to the families forced by economics to live in violent neighborhoods where break-ins, rapes and murders are not as uncommon as they should be, whose only viable defense against the violence is self-defense in the form of a firearm. Yes, some of those threatened have needed five, six, or twenty bullets to defend themselves. There is no certain number that will do the trick, just as there is no certain number of assailants who will enter one’s home.

In an attempt to be brief, I will get to the point. Your intent to do as much as you can to disarm the American public is apparent, either as legislation you support or Executive Orders you have signed. Your emotional appeal to the American public via surrounding yourself with children does not ring logical to the American family, because the defense of one’s own children is often the sole purpose to own firearms. I can point you to innumerable instances where this has been the case and the total swamps by millions the twenty children you claim to represent with these orders.